 |
|
 |
|
 |
||||||||
Science, Religion: |
 |
|||||||
[This question is in my creationism thread even though it's not strictly a response to "Creationism as Anti-Theory."] Any idea on why evolution v. creationism attracts so much attention (from creationists, that is)? Your religion pages highlight dozens of the kookier aspects of Christianity (and other theisms), and any number of results from the sciences flatly contradict the story of Genesis, but for some reason the notion that we're actually related to the animals that plainly look most similar to us drives many Christians (not just the explicit fundamentalists either), er, apeshit. I've pondered this, but I'd like to get your thoughts. —Michael Rooney Why do folks make such a big deal about creationism? (Thanks for the softball question, BTW.) The most respectful answer is to take creationists at their word. The Bible says the world was created 6,000 years ago, so a scientific theory that contradicts that history contradicts the inerrant word of God. Certainly, this explanation goes pretty far, but it's not completely satisfying. First, that explanation leads to the question of why creationists think it's so important to regard the Bible as inerrant. Second, creationists don't get upset about every scientific theory that contradicts the Bible. For example, the Bible records an instance in which Jacob places marked sticks in front of mating goats and sheep (), causing the offspring to be born with birthmarks. This event is contradicted by genetic theory, but you don't hear creationists calling for kids to be taught that the circumstances of conception magically affect the traits of the conceived. Finally, there are plenty of Christians, especially in Europe, who don't make such a big deal about creationism. So there's got to be something more going on. Here's the big deal, as I see it. US religion came into its own in the 19th century. At the same, time, science was developing the theory of evolution. US religion developed its identity when evolution was new, scary, and at odds with scientific theory. Part of the US religious heritage is opposition to the theory of evolution. Did US religion really come into its own in the 19th century? I think so. Before then, the Christianities of North America were European imports, and they were not doing all that well. Forward-thinking Deists had established a new nation as explicitly non-Christian. Jefferson edited miracles out of his version of the Gospels and thought that Unitarianism was the spiritual destiny of the US. But then came the religious movements of the 19th century. The most colorful and zaniest of them survive today as minority sects: Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Christian Scientists. But the most mainstream of them has become the most popular denomination in the US: the Baptist tradition. Did the scientific theories of the 19th century make an impression on the young, home-grown Christianities? You bet. The Jehovah's Witnesses rail against blood transfusions because that sect was invented when transfusions were new and dangerous. (No one had figured out blood type yet.) The JW's and the Christian Scientists get all bothered by hypnotism. Why? Because "Mesmerism," like blood transfusions, was new and scary when these sects got started. The Mormons, meanwhile, have preserved the outdated idea of the white "mound-builders," as well as the 19th century's understanding of "race," with its hard line between "whites" and "blacks." US Christianity prospered, grew, diversified, and matured in an environment of debate over evolution. To this day, many of these Christians still carry the 19th century banner of creationism forward. European Christianities, meanwhile, have made their peace with evolution. The anti-evolution debate was in no way formative for the Catholics, the Lutherans, or the Anglicans, and, in Europe, they have "evolved" past that debate. —JoT |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|